G4S: Catastrophic corporate failure..

[free spirit]

Olympics 2012 badges are obviously the code for those units preparing for the military take over of the government...

 

[Quartz]

Unless what's planned is a massed infantry assault on Olympics locations, there'd be no reason to deploy standing units.

Remember, this is conspiraloon thinking.

 

[free spirit]

conspiraloon thinking.

can you actually use these 2 words next to each other?

 

[Quartz]

I never said it was rational thinking!

 

[silverfish]

Olympics 2012 badges are obviously the code for those units preparing for the military take over of the government...

each one of those fuckers will have had to sew those twats on two of their shirts. what a pain in the arse...straw that breaks the camels back

 

[spitfire]

Nah, they're velcro backed, saw a few down at Westfield the other day.

Also overheard a barman moaning about how he's never been so busy, pulling pints all day for squaddies.

 

[mrs quoad]

Interesting piece in Private Eye about the cheapskate promoters of Olympics related events after all the fucking money that is being thrown at them are often getting musicians to play for free.

How does a G4S manager not realise that the promises made by their company are not going to be delivered with this scale of crapness? They have to be so far removed from the people they are supposed to be managing and, as remarked, it means they just don't fucking care as long as the cash keeps rolling in.

Free musicians on R4 news now!

 

[equationgirl]

Another senior manager resigns and hands over control of Olympic events at Hampden Park, Glasgow to the local police:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-18937980

 

[harpo]

ALL G4S needed to do was employ people on time. Instead they tried to penny-pinch by making potential employees wait until the last minute. They need look no further for why this cock-up. I know of 3 people waiting round on the dole on the promise of employ by them, all of whom suddenly got starts after Cameron started quivering with outrage and threatening them (G4S) with costs. All 3 men were given approx 24 hours notice of the job start. Poor, fucking very very poor.

 

[weltweit]

Shambolic.

 

[savoloysam]

Is anyone really surprised and what did the government expect when calling in the G4 cowbows. Their reputation for gaffs is beyond legendary.

 

[equationgirl]

I honestly think they thought they could get away with getting lots of workfare people and sticking them under bridges. I'm glad it all blew up in their faces.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

I honestly think they thought they could get away with getting lots of workfare people and sticking them under bridges. I'm glad it all blew up in their faces.

They'll just do the same thing next time, and there will be a next time because they will continue to get contracts. That is what their business is, after all, getting contracts - the service provision stuff is secondary. It's just the same way that Capita et al work, only even bigger in scale.

 

[equationgirl]

They'll just do the same thing next time, and there will be a next time because they will continue to get contracts. That is what their business is, after all, getting contracts - the service provision stuff is secondary. It's just the same way that Capita et al work, only even bigger in scale.

Wouldn't surprise me if they don't get the ones they thought they would get though. Like other posters have said, it wouldn't have been difficult to make this happen. They chose to be greedy and look where it got them.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Wouldn't surprise me if they don't get the ones they thought they would get though. Like other posters have said, it wouldn't have been difficult to make this happen. They chose to be greedy and look where it got them.

They already dominate security provision. At best, they might lose a few contracts to other people who do exactly the same but haven't publicly embarrassed themselves with it. The model here for outsourcing doesn't allow anything else, deliberately.

 

[two sheds]

Government will soon forget this. Particularly if a couple of 'bad apple' managers leave with nice fat pensions and new men in suits take over.

 

[killer b]

i learned something about govt contracts the other day - as i'm sure many of you know, public sector contracts over a certain value need to be advertised in the official journal of the european union. stuff advertised through this have a number of rules on how the awarding body has to award it - and they are not allowed currently to take past performance into account when assessing the bids. i understand this is changing at some point in the next few years, but WTF?

 

[Quartz]

and they are not allowed currently to take past performance into account when assessing the bids.

Boggle.
Double boggle.

There aren't enough available to express my opinion on that.

 

[equationgirl]

i learned something about govt contracts the other day - as i'm sure many of you know, public sector contracts over a certain value need to be advertised in the official journal of the european union. stuff advertised through this have a number of rules on how the awarding body has to award it - and they are not allowed currently to take past performance into account when assessing the bids. i understand this is changing at some point in the next few years, but WTF?

I don't think that's entirely correct.

Under 6.2.4 of the European Procurement Rules, service providers must provide proof of ability (amongst other criteria) for the previous 3 years including dates, amounts and nature of contracts, to be countersigned by the contracting authority.
http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/publicprocurement/docs/guidelines/services_en.pdf

Certainly when I've been involved in assessing bids, we've looked at what the bidder is claiming and verified it.

 

[killer b]

hm, good point. maybe the guy who told me this was wrong. he is someone responsible (in part at least) for awarding contracts for a major uk council, so i'd assumed he knew his beans.

 

[equationgirl]

hm, good point. maybe the guy who told me this was wrong. he is someone responsible (in part at least) for awarding contracts for a major uk council, so i'd assumed he knew his beans.

A not unreasonable assumption, to be fair, and had I not been involved in tenders for a public body I too would have accepted that as reasonable.

 

[Minnie_the_Minx]

Anyone posted this up yet?

Olympic chiefs have launched an urgent investigation after stewards responsible for the safety of thousands of spectators were told to forge exam qualifications.
Whistle blower Claudia Blunt, the daughter of Prisons Minister Crispin Blunt, today exposes how lives could have been put at risk after students recruited to help at the Games were fed the answers to a crucial safety exam instead of doing the 12 months of study it normally takes. And the Cambridge student reveals how:

• In a dimly-lit nightclub, around 80 recruits were given bogus documentation bearing the name of a college that does not even offer the safety qualification.
• The would-be stewards were told to exaggerate their experience if questioned by Olympic organisers.
•  None of the students was subject to criminal background checks.
• The recruits were told that even though they had no first aid training, they might have to provide medical attention

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2177018/Claudia-Blunt-Ministers-daughter-exposes-Olympic-safety-scandal.html#ixzz21OMgmUwM

 

[free spirit]

Anyone posted this up yet?

tbf, expecting stewards to attend a 6 month course to learn to steward is a complete load of bollocks.

every festival in this country has operated reasonably safely for the last few decades with the majority of stewarding roles filled by volunteer stewards with a few hours training on site.

How capable they are of doing the job then largely depends on the competence of their supervisors in instructing them on the specifics of the actual task they're expected to do in each position, as well as the person's ability to understand and follow instructions / pick up the task relatively quickly.

Personally I think the 4 hour training sessions Oxfam used to give were perfectly adequate.

If this is a specific LOCOG requirement, then I can actually see why G4S would have problems recruiting and training the required numbers.

 

[Minnie_the_Minx]

tbf, expecting stewards to attend a 6 month course to learn to steward is a complete load of bollocks.

every festival in this country has operated reasonably safely for the last few decades with the majority of stewarding roles filled by volunteer stewards with a few hours training on site.

How capable they are of doing the job then largely depends on the competence of their supervisors in instructing them on the specifics of the actual task they're expected to do in each position, as well as the person's ability to understand and follow instructions / pick up the task relatively quickly.

Personally I think the 4 hour training sessions Oxfam used to give were perfectly adequate.

If this is a specific LOCOG requirement, then I can actually see why G4S would have problems recruiting and training the required numbers.

I agree, but just putting it up anyway

However, regardless of whether you need 4 hours train or 4 months or 4 years, the fact is, someone's lying and the public are paying these people

 

[equationgirl]

Didn't the law change fairly recently, though, as the security industry wasn't regulated properly, or am I thinking of something else?

I did think they all had to be CRB checked for example, because it was mandated by law.

 

[equationgirl]

Fair play to her for blowing the whistle though, takes a lot of guts to do that.

 

[free spirit]

Didn't the law change fairly recently, though, as the security industry wasn't regulated properly, or am I thinking of something else?

I did think they all had to be CRB checked for example, because it was mandated by law.

that's just the SIA security staff afaik.

There's always been a distinction between the stewards and security teams, who fullfilled complementary but distinct roles. Essentially stewards shouldn't ever be using physical force to prevent access / kick you out etc. but can steward fire exits, back stage areas etc and ask people not to go through them, then call for the SIA security to kick anyone out who doesn't comply with that request.

I'm a couple of years out of date on this though, but hope I'm still right, as IME stewards do the job far better than SIA security who more often manage to escalate a situation to violence than de-escalate it.

 

[SpookyFrank]

I don't think that's entirely correct.

Under 6.2.4 of the European Procurement Rules, service providers must provide proof of ability (amongst other criteria) for the previous 3 years including dates, amounts and nature of contracts, to be countersigned by the contracting authority.
http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/publicprocurement/docs/guidelines/services_en.pdf

Certainly when I've been involved in assessing bids, we've looked at what the bidder is claiming and verified it.

That being the case, how do G4S keep getting contracts? Exactly how many members of the cabinet do they have compromising photos of?

 

[treelover]

Anyone posted this up yet?

Good for this (tory's daughter) she has taken some risks here, most employers don't like whistleblowers, her chances of professional employment have imo, been somewhat reduced...

 

[equationgirl]

That being the case, how do G4S keep getting contracts? Exactly how many members of the cabinet do they have compromising photos of?

I don't know, I'm not doing the assessments, plus it depends how diligent the assessment is. Some people, especially if they aren't used to assessing tenders do accept submissions on face value alone.